The Federal Communications Commission last week released more than 13,000 pages of net neutrality complaints filed by consumers against their Internet service providers. But the big document release came just one day before the deadline for the public to comment on FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to repeal the net neutrality rules.

The National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request in May in an attempt to get all of the net neutrality complaints received by the FCC since the rules took effect in 2015. The group also sought details on the resolution of each complaint, including ISPs' responses to each consumer.

Further Reading

The NHMC argued that all of the complaints should be released well in advance of the comment deadline in order to let the public evaluate the potential impact of repealing the rules. But the FCC still hasn't released the text of most of the complaints, and it has resisted calls to give the public more time to comment on the net neutrality repeal proposal.

The FCC released the biggest batch of documents to the NHMC on August 29 and a smaller batch on August 24, but the commission did not publish the documents on its website or take any other steps to make them widely available. Ars has been asking the FCC to make the complaints public since August 25, but we haven't gotten a reply.

It was thus up to the NHMC to publish the documents so that anyone can read them—everything the NHMC has released publicly is available on the advocacy group's website, but the group hasn't posted the August 29 batch yet. In total, the NHMC has received the text of 20,000 complaints and data related to 54,000 complaints, the group told Ars today. (There were just 47,000 complaints when the group started asking for them.)

"We are working to put the new documents online; it takes about a week turnaround time for our staff due to the heavy amounts of data and our small staff," an NHMC spokesperson told Ars.

The NHMC wanted at least 60 days to conduct a full analysis of all complaints before the deadline to submit comments on Pai's proposal to dismantle the net neutrality rules. Other advocacy groups also requested an eight-week comment deadline extension, but the FCC granted only a two-week extension, and the revised deadline passed on August 30.

FCC “ignored evidence”

"This small glimpse into the universe of consumer complaints show that the FCC blatantly ignored the evidence that the agency had in its possession throughout its push to scrap the vital consumer protections established by the Open Internet Order," NHMC Policy and Legal Affairs Director Carmen Scurato said in a press release last week.

The first sample of net neutrality complaint documents received by the NHMC in June, "included nothing about the carrier response or how the complaints were resolved," the NHMC said at the time.

The FCC initially said it would be too burdensome to review and redact personally identifiable information from all complaints. But later, the FCC agreed to release more complaints shortly before the comment deadline and "release the remainder as soon as we can."

On August 24, the NHMC says, it "received an additional 7,044 pages of consumer complaints, 457 pages of carrier responses, 1,500 ombudsperson e-mails, and ten Excel spreadsheets." On August 29, the group "received an additional 13,311 pages of consumer complaints and 127 pages of carrier responses." It's not clear when all complaints will be made public.

Pai's "Restoring Internet Freedom" plan has drawn more than 22 million public comments, though most are from form letters and many are spam. There were more than 1.5 million "personalized" comments, with about 98.5 percent of them opposing Pai's proposal to repeal the rules, an analysis found.

Evidence of harm?

Pai's proposal to overturn the net neutrality rules argued that there were only "isolated examples" of harm to consumers that would justify the FCC's prohibitions on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

Further Reading

But at least in the minds of consumers, ISPs have been harming their customers in ways that violate net neutrality. The documents posted by the NHMC so far include complaints about blocking, throttling, data caps, inconsistent speeds, privacy, inaccurate disclosures, billing, and more. Complaints were filed against Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and others. You can find ISP responses to complaints here and e-mails from the FCC's open Internet ombudsperson here.

Complaints are often filed about broadband service policies that don't actually violate net neutrality rules, such as data caps or throttling that is allowed under the exception for "reasonable network management." But the complaints show that many consumers believe that Internet service providers aren't acting as neutral conduits to the Internet.

The NHMC urged the FCC to reopen the net neutrality docket to allow more time to review the complaints and responses to them:

Now, we can clearly see the effectiveness of open Internet protections on the books—consumers were able to voice the harms they experienced and seek help to remedy them. While the agency attempted to avoid the scrutiny of the public through today's deadline to file comments, the FCC still has a chance to do a proper analysis of the documents, give Public Notice and initiate a new comment cycle. This is an opportunity for the FCC to prove that they will no longer shirk their responsibility to prevent corporate abuses and keep the open Internet open.

How long until Ajit says Fuck It and just straight up says "Yeah no matter what you say I'm going to repeal net neutrality for my Corporate Sponsors and you can't do anything about it".

He might as well, because yeah, there really is nothing we can do about it aside from now extreme actions which not enough people seem to support even though it's necessary before we effectively give companies total control over our speech in every way.

Pai's proposal to overturn the net neutrality rules argued that there were only "isolated examples" of harm to consumers that would justify the FCC's prohibitions on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

The incidents will be limited to only people who use the internet. Pai's assholery is laying the groundwork for the 'net to be designated a public utility.

My Surprise-O-Meter's needle didn't even twitch. Pai has revealed his utter indifference to anything other than his corporate owners' wishes from the get-go. Net Neutrality was doomed the day this administration took over, and if Pai were to reverse course and save it, there'd swiftly be a new FCC head appointed in his place that knew how to play ball.

My Surprise-O-Meter's needle didn't even twitch. Pai has revealed his utter indifference to anything other than his corporate owners' wishes from the get-go. Net Neutrality was doomed the day this administration took over, and if Pai were to reverse course and save it, there'd swiftly be a new FCC head appointed in his place that knew how to play ball.

This.

It's is a sad state of affairs when the FCC can blatantly ignore constituents in this regard. Even more so when you last sentence rings true with so many people out there, including myself.

But the complaints show that many consumers believe that Internet service providers aren't acting as neutral conduits to the Internet.

Which would be quite absurd for anyone to think that they are, they're in the business of making money and will act in such interest.

Therein lies the quandary: While you are technically correct, it is absurd to think that pure capitalism can be sustained long term without some sort of adjustment.

Now, what that adjustment is? Well, I fear that is to be determined in a way that is with much pain &/or suffering, and will probably include a lot more civil unrest at some point in the future. And even then, may still go unanswered, while the great "unwashed masses" continue to be ripped off by the privileged.

But the complaints show that many consumers believe that Internet service providers aren't acting as neutral conduits to the Internet.

Which would be quite absurd for anyone to think that they are, they're in the business of making money and will act in such interest.

Every healthy capitalist enterprise will seek to maximize its profits, within the limits imposed by the law.That is where government regulations come in, to protect the interests of consumers.The FCC, as a governmental regulatory organization, in its infinite wisdom, somehow fails to grasp this concept.

Assuming this goes through, years from now we'll see Europe's neutral internet and the benefits they get from it. But we'll be told that ours is the best - just like our health care.

Constantly being told that the American way is the best at everything (and that questioning this is profoundly un-american) has unconsciously led the unsuspecting American people down some terrible slippery slopes from which it will be very hard to recover.

How long until Ajit says Fuck It and just straight up says "Yeah no matter what you say I'm going to repeal net neutrality for my Corporate Sponsors and you can't do anything about it".

In not so many words, and through every single action he has taken, he's all but outright said it. "Fuck the rest of you, I have an agenda, and there is no evidence anybody can provide that will make me change my pre-chosen course of action. I'm just going through these motions because I HAVE to."

His actions are to only serve his master: the GOP dogma to favor-the-ISP-owners over all other considerations.

Every healthy capitalist enterprise will seek to maximize its profits, within the limits imposed by the law.That is where government regulations come in, to protect the interests of consumers.The FCC, as a governmental regulatory organization, in its infinite wisdom, somehow fails to grasp this concept.

A healthy capitalist enterprise maximizing profits is OK as long as there is widespread and healthy competition, and consumers have many choices. It's after the corporation achieves a near monopoly that it can maximize profits by ignoring customer needs.

When there is limited effective competition and limited consumer choice, that is when regulation is desperately needed. Creating an environment where competition grows and thrives is better than regulation, if it can be achieved.

How long until Ajit says Fuck It and just straight up says "Yeah no matter what you say I'm going to repeal net neutrality for my Corporate Sponsors and you can't do anything about it".

He might as well, because yeah, there really is nothing we can do about it aside from now extreme actions which not enough people seem to support even though it's necessary before we effectively give companies total control over our speech in every way.

Someone over at reddit explained how this whole process works, i'll copy and paste his Tl;DR below but the entire post is EXTREMELY well worth reading. All of those comments DO make a significant difference.

"Tl;dr - The judicial system has the ability to oversee the rulemaking process regulatory agencies go through when they pass a new regulation, and the fact that so many legitimate comments are against NN is a huge advantage to getting the inevitable repeal of NN overturned by the courts. Keep paying attention to what happens though, as they may reopen the comment period after the courts make a decision. We'll need to show up again if that happens. Trust in the judiciary. It's the only branch of government largely left uncorrupted by the influence of money, and it absolutely has the power to stop Pai - we just need to give the courts enough reason to do so." - TuckerMcG

But the complaints show that many consumers believe that Internet service providers aren't acting as neutral conduits to the Internet.

Which would be quite absurd for anyone to think that they are, they're in the business of making money and will act in such interest.

Contrary to popular belief, and the belief of most corporations it seems, you can make a profit without fucking over your customers.

Yeah but when you own a monopoly on an essential service that has little government oversight there is even more profit to be made by fucking over your customers... in every hole... without gel. Who is going to stop them? Obviously not the FCC!

How long until Ajit says Fuck It and just straight up says "Yeah no matter what you say I'm going to repeal net neutrality for my Corporate Sponsors and you can't do anything about it".

He might as well, because yeah, there really is nothing we can do about it aside from now extreme actions which not enough people seem to support even though it's necessary before we effectively give companies total control over our speech in every way.

Someone over at reddit explained how this whole process works, i'll copy and paste his Tl;DR below but the entire post is EXTREMELY well worth reading. All of those comments DO make a significant difference.

"Tl;dr - The judicial system has the ability to oversee the rulemaking process regulatory agencies go through when they pass a new regulation, and the fact that so many legitimate comments are against NN is a huge advantage to getting the inevitable repeal of NN overturned by the courts. Keep paying attention to what happens though, as they may reopen the comment period after the courts make a decision. We'll need to show up again if that happens. Trust in the judiciary. It's the only branch of government largely left uncorrupted by the influence of money, and it absolutely has the power to stop Pai - we just need to give the courts enough reason to do so." - TuckerMcG

Every healthy capitalist enterprise will seek to maximize its profits, within the limits imposed by the law.That is where government regulations come in, to protect the interests of consumers.The FCC, as a governmental regulatory organization, in its infinite wisdom, somehow fails to grasp this concept.

A healthy capitalist enterprise maximizing profits is OK as long as there is widespread and healthy competition, and consumers have many choices. It's after the corporation achieves a near monopoly that it can maximize profits by ignoring customer needs.

When there is limited effective competition and limited consumer choice, that is when regulation is desperately needed. Creating an environment where competition grows and thrives is better than regulation, if it can be achieved.

Assuming this goes through, years from now we'll see Europe's neutral internet and the benefits they get from it. But we'll be told that ours is the best - just like our health care.

Constantly being told that the American way is the best at everything (and that questioning this is profoundly un-american) has unconsciously led the unsuspecting American people down some terrible slippery slopes from which it will be very hard to recover.

I can think another nation on this Earth that repeatedly beats the notion of "Ours is the best in the world" into its citizenry. The US is having a pissing match with the leader of that nation as we speak.

How long until Ajit says Fuck It and just straight up says "Yeah no matter what you say I'm going to repeal net neutrality for my Corporate Sponsors and you can't do anything about it".

He might as well, because yeah, there really is nothing we can do about it aside from now extreme actions which not enough people seem to support even though it's necessary before we effectively give companies total control over our speech in every way.

Haven't you been paying attention? He pretty much already has...in a smarmy, disingenuous Shkrelian sort of way. He just hasn't used those actual words.

All I can console myself with is how butthurt he's gonna be in court when the FCC gets pimp slapped for ignoring the wealth of information in its possession indicating that not only is it abdicating its responsibilities to protect consumers and regulate industry, it's actively sawing its own legs off to let industry rape the populace and contorting reality so hard it's breaking the laws of physics to make it appear that the FCC is doing what's in the best interest of the American public.

Well, given their current tactics there might just be standing for a lawsuit now. Add that and the solutions to Ajit Pai stand at 3: a rifle, congressional action, and a SCOTUS decision. None are especially appealing from a practical perspective.

It's almost as if there's someone else with a dog in this fight that has better resources and an higher degree of interest that just the consumers who actually pay for these services or the Public Servants (HA! - that's semantically equal to "Public Masters").

It's like there was a decision made to go a certain direction and no amount of facts the contrary will be considered.

How long until Ajit says Fuck It and just straight up says "Yeah no matter what you say I'm going to repeal net neutrality for my Corporate Sponsors and you can't do anything about it".

He might as well, because yeah, there really is nothing we can do about it aside from now extreme actions which not enough people seem to support even though it's necessary before we effectively give companies total control over our speech in every way.

Actually, you're wrong about us not being able to do anything about it. Net Neutrality was a regulatory measure adopted by the FCC under Obama, and it will be a political football as long as the power to enact, and rescind, it remains in the hands of a partisan committee of five.

In 2018 we can elect representatives who give more of a shit about the American people than they do sucking the dicks of corporate America. Net Neutrality, as a regulatory issue, can be made into LAW, which the FCC is obligated to follow, and can not repeal or ignore.

So, yes, there is something we can do. Whether or not enough of the alt right give enough of a cognitive shit to vote in their own interests for a change remains to be seen, but if enough of the rest of America who has an inkling of reality vote out the people who will support Pai with people who won't, then it's at least possible that we can make NN a permanent part of the American Internet landscape and not subject to the whims of egregious corporate ass-kissers.

Wow, the FCC (Pai essentially) is just begging for a lawsuit over net neutrality. My guess is that it will be immediately challenged and a stay granted from implementing the change.

Doubtful. This is a rule rather than a law. When the administration is a kleptocracy the rules reflect it.

My understanding (and people can feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken) is that when a rule that's only two years old gets overturned, plaintiffs can demand that the agency justify the change by demonstrating that the new rule has already had a significant negative impact.

Pai, of course, insists that Title II regulations have harmed broadband investment; that will be his claim.

The plaintiffs, on the other hand, will argue (among other things) that (1) that's not true (and that if it were, the telecoms would have said so in their statements to shareholders) and (2) the need for the Title II regulation is demonstrated by all these complaints, which the FCC deliberately attempted to conceal.

And, notably, Wegmans is privately owned. It's possible to both make a profit and not screw your customers/employees. It's much harder to continually grow your profits month after month, year after year, without screwing them. It seems that eventually someone in charge decides to start sacrificing that for profit.

A private company doesn't necessarily have that pressure on continuous profit return growth and can be prosperous with a relatively flat profit return.